Checks could have halted Philadelphia abortion doctor, lawyer says |

Checks could have halted Philadelphia abortion doctor, lawyer says

The Associated Press
Regular clinic inspections would have kept Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion provider convicted of killing babies born alive, from going astray, Gosnell's lawyer said.

WILMINGTON, Del. — The lawyer for an abortion provider convicted of killing babies who were born alive said he thinks regular inspections in his client’s Philadelphia clinic would have kept him from going so far astray.

Longtime doctor Kermit Gosnell “was not a stupid man” and would have met the standards required to keep his clinic open, defense lawyer Jack McMahon said during a law school seminar on Friday.

“That doesn’t excuse the behavior that occurred here, but I think that (inspections) would have prevented it, because Dr. Gosnell was not a stupid man. He may not have been at the Mayo Clinic (level), but he would have risen to a higher level of competence … to remain open,” said McMahon, who joined Gosnell trial judge Jeffrey Minehart on a panel on high-publicity trials at Widener University School of Law.

Gosnell, 73, is serving a life sentence as a result of his conviction last year for killing three babies born alive and the overdose death of a woman who was a clinic patient. Investigators described his clinic as a chaotic “house of horrors,” replete with fetal remains in the staff refrigerator, specimen jars of severed feet in his office and dirty medical instruments in the surgery rooms.

Authorities in Pennsylvania had failed to conduct routine inspections of all its abortion clinics for 15 years by the time Gosnell’s facility was raided as part of a prescription drug investigation.

Gosnell later pleaded guilty in federal court to running a pill mill for addicts and drug dealers. In the scandal’s aftermath, two top state health officials were fired, and the state imposed tougher rules for clinics.

McMahon said he believes that regulators turned a blind eye to Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic because it was providing “a cheap service” to poor, minority women.

Former clinic employees testified that Gosnell routinely performed illegal abortions past Pennsylvania’s 24-week limit. They said that Gosnell delivered babies who were still moving and that he and his assistants killed them by snipping their spines with scissors.

Gosnell’s biggest transgression may have been hiring high school dropouts and other unqualified people to act as doctors, McMahon said. The employees performed abortions, administered anesthesia and monitored high-risk patients.

Four former clinic employees, including Gosnell’s wife and Steven Massof, 51, formerly of Mt. Lebanon, pleaded guilty in the case. Massof, an unlicensed doctor who attended medical school in Grenada, is serving a sentence of six to 12 years in prison for his conviction on third-degree murder charges.

Despite the life sentence, Gosnell was acquitted in the deaths of four other babies. McMahon negotiated a post-conviction deal that spared Gosnell a potential death sentence.

Minehart, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge, said Gosnell’s trial “was a fascinating trial to be a part of.”

“I found it to be a tremendous experience,” he said. “I couldn’t have been happier when it was over.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.